Standing Committee C

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Promotion of Volunteering Bill

David Amess: I remind the Committee that a money resolution is necessary for debate on clause 2(5) to commence. However, I note that the Minister has tabled an amendment that would remove that subsection. The Committee can agree to that amendment and continue to consider the rest of the Bill.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That, if proceedings on the Promotion of Volunteering Bill are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet next Wednesday at 9.30 am and thereafter on Wednesdays at 9.30 am and 2.30 pm
 It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I have served on many Committees with you, but never before under your chairmanship. 
 I thank all hon. Members who have volunteered to serve on the Committee. I thank my supporters in all parts of the Committee and thank the Minister for the time that she has given up for a series of helpful meetings. I am sorry that we have been unable to reach agreement, but that is not for want of trying on either side. 
 The sittings motion proposes that we should meet next Wednesday at 9.30 am and, should it be necessary, on subsequent Wednesdays at 9.30 am and 2.30 pm. The reason for the last moment change is not deliberate discourtesy to the Committee on my part, but the fact that the Minister said that she wished to move the money resolution on the Floor of the House next Wednesday. On the basis of that agreement, I am happy to restrict our sittings to the morning only next Wednesday, although that means that I will have to resist her proposal in respect of the money resolution, because there would be no point in the deal otherwise. 
 Sittings motions should always be debated briefly, and I know that under your eagle eye, Mr. Amess, I will not be able to depart very far from the text. However, it is worth saying that the Committee is dealing with one of the great tragedies of our era. A country that prided itself on sport and fitness is now the third worst in obesity terms in the developed world. The many messages that I have received expressing support for our deliberations are a touching tribute to our work. For example, the chairman of the National Council for School Sport said: 
''I am one of tens of thousands of teachers who freely give their time and enjoy''—

David Amess: Order. I reluctantly have to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are, strictly speaking, debating the sittings motion. I am sure that all members of the Committee understand his desire to widen the debate, but I ask him to resist that
 temptation, because the amendments will give plenty of scope for him to do so.

Julian Brazier: Indeed, Mr. Amess. In fact, I was just drawing my remarks to a close. I wanted to give that quote because I thought that it summarised what we are all about.
 I hope that we will finish our deliberations next Wednesday morning. If we finish them in satisfactory fashion, the Minister will not require the money resolution to be dealt with in the afternoon, but if we are still running on, we will resist the amendment on the money resolution and have our outing next week on the Floor of the House. 
 I commend the amended motion to the Committee.

Lembit Öpik: I am delighted to be serving the interests of the Bill and the hon. Gentleman. The timing that is proposed seems sufficient. I hope that those who are concerned about the content of the Bill will recognise that it is not the quantity of time spent but the quality of outcome achieved that matters. I hope that we will achieve something that is in the interests of the organisations, individuals and volunteers who desperately need action on this issue.

Fiona Mactaggart: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess.
 It is very tempting to follow the lead of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and deal with the general issue. I shall briefly do so, but not because I am seeking to delay the proceedings. It is important for Committee members who were not present on Second Reading to be aware that the Government accept that the issue is very serious and should be addressed. The hon. Gentleman, being a very honourable chap, will confirm to the Committee that the matter has already taken up a significant amount of my time in meetings I have had with him and with bodies that have sponsored the concept of such legislation. 
 We recognise that there is a question of adventurousness and risk in relation to the Bill. The question concerns whether the world is becoming a ''vanilla world'' in which we have become overprotective and driven out opportunities for young people in particular to experience active, adventurous sport and other activities. The Government are at one with the hon. Gentleman in wishing to ensure that people get that experience. 
 That is why we took the bold—as some of my colleagues might say, having seen the consequences—and, for me, tiring decision not to do the usual thing on Second Reading. We decided that because the issue was so substantial, we should see whether the Bill could be a vehicle for resolving it. That is why so much time has been spent on trying to resolve it in a series of meetings with the hon. Gentleman and his supporters, and with other Departments. On Second Reading, we alerted the House to some substantial problems in the Bill, and we will have an opportunity in Committee to consider some of those problems carefully. 
 I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which, when he has been confronted by some of the substantial problems in the Bill, he has said, ''Okay, out of the window with that one.'' I wish to acknowledge his constructive response to my attempts to be constructive. We have gone a long way in a partnership, but I am concerned about my optimism. As a new Minister, I have to say that optimism is a good way place to start but a tiring way to continue. I was optimistic that in Committee, and prior to it, we could achieve a consensus on how to proceed, but that has been very difficult in practice. 
 We have explored the issues in depth with the hon. Gentleman and with the sector, which I think everyone would agree is key, in an attempt to reduce barriers to volunteering. The main barrier that the legislation is designed to tackle is a perceived one. I have to tell the Committee that there is an increasing recognition that the perception does not match the reality, although the effect of that perception is substantial.

David Amess: Order. Again, I hesitate to intervene, but I hope that the Minister will keep her remarks closely relevant to the sittings motion, which is very narrow.

Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed, Mr. Amess.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; it obviates the need for me to contribute other than by intervention. Having convincingly and to my satisfaction established her bona fides in respect of her intentions, does she agree that it is incumbent on her at some stage, if not now, to drive this matter towards an acceptable legislative conclusion? That would allow us all to get on with the job of volunteering and ensure that we have a watertight package that is deliverable.

Fiona Mactaggart: That is precisely the point that I was getting to. One of the things that has become clear in these discussions is that I am not certain that a legislative solution is best. We will address that issue during our deliberations. However, I am certain that we need to drive to a solution; I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury on that, and I have tried to find ways of arriving at a solution through this Bill.
 I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to adapt his proposal so that we do not face the possibility of an extended Adjournment in connection with a money resolution, which would have been the consequence of what he originally proposed. He has responded helpfully to that. The money resolution was not tabled in advance of this sitting because we hoped until the last minute that we might achieve consensus on a solution that would not necessarily require it. I know that there is a problem and I want to find a solution. 
 In this Committee, we can work together to explore the issues and think them through. The proposed timetable will give us a reasonable opportunity to do that. We should ensure that we use the process to build confidence in the commitment of politicians from all parties to enabling volunteering to occur and risk taking to be part of our lives, to having a fitter society and to working together to—

Ian Taylor: Given that we are talking about a sittings motion, cannot the Minister be more positive? All the words she is uttering are supportive of the concept. Surely, in forthcoming sittings she can come to terms with the fact that there needs to be legislative change. If she were to embrace that idea, as well as uttering warm words, she would find that we made much more progress towards encouraging volunteering.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me before my last two words, which were going to be ''deliver that''. None the less, his intervention deserves a response. I have moved towards the view that the issue will not necessarily be best resolved through legislation. That view is not a device. Some of the organisations, such as the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which have been urgent supporters of the Bill and have contributed substantially to the discussions, have come to the view that the issues raised could be properly dealt with by non-legislative means.

Kate Hoey: I am very interested in what the Minister has just said about the CCPR. Is she saying that it does not support the Bill?

Fiona Mactaggart: I have an extract from the CCPR's website:
''For these reasons, we take the view that, rather than continue to support the Bill through Committee stage, we should use the raised awareness of the issues created by the Bill''—
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury for raising that awareness— 
''to work cooperatively with partner organisations and government departments and agencies, towards positive solutions to a wider range of problems than can possibly be covered by the Bill. In particular, we see the Russell Commission as a means of exploring the issues around risk, blame and insurance, especially for the voluntary sector; and look forward to being able to access resources, shortly to be available to the voluntary and community sector, to establish support structures for volunteers and their organisations.''

Kate Hoey: The Minister says that that statement is from the CCPR's website. Having heard about that possible outcome, I rang approximately a dozen of the different governing bodies and members of the CCPR and no one seemed to know anything about the statement. I presume that it has come from Margaret Talbot. Was the decision made democratically by the CCPR?

David Amess: Order. I have been very generous in my chairing so far. Before the Minister replies, I remind the Committee that the sittings motion is very narrow, and there is plenty of opportunity for those other matters to be debated when I call amendments later.

Andrew Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Surely, it is reasonable for us at least to explore those matters a little. We want to know whether we will have to be present for several sittings or whether we can truncate the proceedings. It is reasonable at least to air those issues at this point.

David Amess: It is for me entirely to make a judgment on such matters. Having listened very carefully to what has been said, I ask hon. Members
 again to draw their remarks much more closely to the sittings motion.

Fiona Mactaggart: I cannot answer for the CCPR. The existence of the Bill has created a belief—legislation often does this—in the wider sector that there is a magic wand somewhere that will solve such substantial problems.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to the Minister, and I take your strictures on board, Mr. Amess. Does the fact that the CCPR is prepared to talk and the fact that—one assumes from the Minister's comments—it expects to receive some funding after today's announcement, mean that the Minister is asking for a shorter—

David Amess: Hon. Members say that they have been listening very carefully, but I have made several rulings. I ask the Committee again to draw remarks closely to the sittings motion, and I ask the Minister not to respond to the point that has been made.
Lembit Öpik rose—

David Amess: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Fiona Mactaggart: I find it difficult to obey you, Mr. Amess. I will explain why and we will see what happens.

Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister feel that the sittings motion will allow her sufficient time to provide us with a clear understanding of the CCPR's views and any issues that it has raised as we go through the various clauses?

David Amess: That is a very helpful intervention.

Fiona Mactaggart: It is not the job of the Committee to deal with such matters. Nevertheless, it is worth dealing with one specific point that is relevant to the sittings motion, because it relates to how we timetable sittings and how procedures work in this place. Despite your warning, Mr. Amess, I was about to address that point.

Frank Dobson: I have listened very carefully to your rulings, Mr. Amess. The logic of the Minister's position is that we should not attempt to change the law at this point. If we are not going to attempt that, the sittings motion could state that we will knock off in five minutes. Conversely, are we as a Committee prepared to consider changing the law and sending an amended Bill back to the House? In that case, perhaps this sitting and another might be required, but if the Minister says that this is no time to legislate, why are we sitting around pretending that we are going to do so?

Fiona Mactaggart: That point connects directly to the one that I am trying to make about the experience of dealing in detail with the implications of different provisions in the legislation. Frankly, people's expectations about a huge range of things have been raised enormously by the Bill. Only yesterday, I received a letter from someone who thought that it would mean that more farmers would allow their land
 to be used for riding. I do not believe that that is the intention of the hon. Member for Canterbury, but that expectation has been raised by the Bill. Therefore, it is proper to ensure that there is enough time carefully to examine its consequences.
 On Second Reading, I was the person who was largely responsible for our being able to convene as a Committee. I share the ambition to resolve the problems.

Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very tolerant. Is she saying that we need the sittings so that she can better understand the arguments of those who are in favour of the Bill, the more easily to reject them by voting against them?

Fiona Mactaggart: No; I have no deficit in understanding. We should not underestimate the important role of private Members' legislation to enable people to understand the scope of a problem and to examine ways of resolving it. I believe that everyone in the Committee accepts that we are dealing with a real problem that needs to be resolved. It is proper that we should use the Bill to do that.
 I have been generous in taking interventions because I believe that the issue is important, but I am not trying to spin out debate excessively. I have not done that at any point during the process, although the opportunity to do so was open to me. The Bill is a serious attempt by the hon. Member for Canterbury to deal with a serious problem, and I have made it clear that the Government accept that it is a serious problem. We have sought to work with the sector, and not, as has been suggested, to offer anyone any inducements to agree. The references in the letter from Margaret Talbot and in the statement on the website were not to yesterday's announcement, but to the funds that were announced in the cross-cutting review following the 2002 Budget. It is not new money. 
 If the sittings motion is amended, we will be able to examine the issues. The hon. Gentleman himself has recognised that some ways of removing barriers to volunteering are not necessarily the best, which is why he seeks to withdraw certain parts of his Bill. 
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
That, if proceedings on the Promotion of Volunteering Bill are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet next Wednesday at 9.30 am and thereafter on Wednesdays at 9.30 am and 2.30 pm

Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That the Promotion of Volunteering Bill be considered in the following order: Clauses 3 to 5, Clauses 1 and 2, Clauses 6 and 7, remaining proceedings on the Bill.
 To assist members of the Committee, I have prepared a short promoter's brief that lists the various amendments and the approach that I am minded to take with regard to them. One crucial issue is the money resolution, which I dealt with in my speech on the sittings motion. 
 The purpose of the order of consideration motion is to allow us in double-quick time to drop clauses 3, 4 and 5, all of which have real merit but will detract from our debating a part of the Bill that has attracted 
 a huge amount of attention and support from the sporting and adventure training community—the statement of inherent risk. My purpose in tabling the motion is to enable us to get rid of the rest of the Bill. As we deal with each clause, I shall take about 30 seconds to explain why I thought that it had merit. I hope that the Minister will not speak to her amendments to those clauses, on the basis that none of them will be pressed. Conveniently, the amendments are grouped with the clauses, mostly in single groups, so they can be quickly disposed of. That will give her the opportunity to show the good faith that she has shown throughout this process. We can then get on to the main business in clauses 1 and 2. 
 I want to focus on clauses 1 and 2 because I have received a huge number of letters, messages and testimonies of support for this Bill that focus on that single feature. I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Amess, by going back to the earlier debate, but suffice it to say that this morning, representatives from the Campaign for Adventure, which represents the guides, scouts and a whole mass of other outward bound organisations, were part of a group that discussed the Bill. Representatives of the girl guides were also present, as were representatives of the Field Studies Council, which has such an important position in respect of school trips. The Royal Aero Club, which has half a million members, was also represented. Written and verbal testimonies have come in again and again. For that reason, I aim to focus on the two main clauses and to drop clauses 3, 4 and 5, although each of those has merit. 
 Clauses 4 and 5 involve potential clashes with the European convention on human rights. It may be helpful to clear that up at this point; it will save us from doing so later. It will save the Minister's time if we deal with the provisions immediately after we have finished with this motion. 
 There are copies of the Library's excellent briefing in the corner of the Room. The Library has been particularly helpful. I would like to put on record how grateful I am for the huge amount of work that it has done. I also thank your excellent Clerk, Mr. Amess, who has worked intensely hard to get everything ready.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Government are of the view that this order of consideration is a sensible way to proceed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that it is sensible to deal quickly with the additional points, and to focus on the main issue. We know that that is the ambition of those who have supported the Bill.
 On Second Reading, I said that the Government were taking a neutral position. However, they perceived some problems with the structure of the Bill and felt that it was right to see whether such problems could be overcome. I have therefore tabled stand part debates so that we could leave out all the clauses that have been referred to, because I did not believe that we could achieve the result that we wanted. However, to cover the possibility that those clauses might remain part of the Bill, I have tabled a number of amendments that seek to improve the Bill, and to avoid changing established law. 
 I am willing to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman on how to do that. We can then get through nearly all the additional business during today's sitting, and in our next sitting we could start on clause 2. If today is the prelude, clause 2 is the main event. 
 There are real problems as far as the Government are concerned about the way in which clause 2 is drafted. It aims to ensure that more sporting and adventurous activity can take place, particularly involving young people. However, there is a risk that, by reducing the liability of participants in the event of injury to someone to whom they have a duty of care, we allow negligence. Just as I have said that I think that all members of the Committee share an ambition to enable more sporting and adventurous activity to take place, I do not believe that any Members would want to pass legislation that might open the door to negligence. That is not our ambition, but I am concerned that that might be the consequence of what we seek to do.

Julian Brazier: When we debate clauses 1 and 2, I will offer evidence from abroad, past practice in this country and open testimony that there is a huge problem, which other people have sought to address in a different way, and that, above all, by reducing the scope for properly structured and organised recreation sport and adventure training, we are driving less adventurous youngsters into obesity and more adventurous youngsters into dangerous and frequently illegal extra-curricular activities.

Fiona Mactaggart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that we must avoid the consequences of reducing the scope for adventurous activity, and that is why I have expended as much energy as I have in working with him on the Bill. I am disappointed that we have not been able to resolve the matter, but it is not for want of trying, as I am sure he will confirm. I am prepared to agree that the clauses should be taken in the order that he has proposed, as long as I can briefly make clear that the Government are concerned about the potential impact of the Bill on the established law of negligence.

Frank Dobson: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend, who has been trying her best to get various Departments to agree. Getting them to agree on a date is usually a fairly difficult matter, so getting them to agree on something difficult is a daunting task. However, large numbers of activities were until recently recognised to be lawful, and the actions of a limited number of parents and lawyers, augmented by a few daft judges, has extended the law of negligence. We must retract that law, but only to such an extent that we do not encourage negligence. We must accept that we intend to retract the recent judicial extension of that law. Parliament can decide what the law is, and in this respect we must take those powers back into our hands and away from the judges.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend would not expect a Home Office Minister to echo his words, because I can think of one Home Office Minister who recently took the route that he suggests and caused quite a lot of fluttering in the dovecotes. The word
 ''bonkers'' was employed at one point, so I will not go down the road that he generously offers for describing the behaviour of the judiciary.
 My right hon. Friend knows better than most, however, about the difficulties of getting government to agree, and his account must be acknowledged. The hon. Member for Canterbury knows that that has been part of the difficulty with the Bill. It is not the universal view in the Government that the law of negligence has been changed by the judges, and it would be interesting to see the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman intends to refer. 
 As I said, no one wants to open the door to negligence. I recall a previous private Member's Bill on the connected subject of adventure activity centres. There had been a complete collapse of confidence in such centres because of a serious incident involving young participants. It was only as a result of private Members' legislation that established a regulation scheme for such centres that confidence was rebuilt and that young people re-engaged in those activities. 
 That is a reminder that problems can be resolved by private Members' legislation. However, it is difficult to do that across a broad front and in a way that affects not just tens of centres, as in the previous case, but thousands of small organisations and probably millions of volunteers, which is what the Bill aims to do. That is a particularly complex undertaking, and it must be done carefully. Although we all share the same ambitions, we need to ensure that we do not produce unintended consequences.

David Amess: Order. I have been listening carefully to the Minister, but may I ask her to explain to the Committee how her remarks are drawn specifically to what we should be discussing—whether proceedings on the Bill should be taken as is proposed in the motion?

Fiona Mactaggart: We need to look at how the clauses relate to the impact on other legislation, and it is important that the Committee considers the impact of such matters on the basis of wide consultation. However, the order of consideration is sensible and I am happy to support the hon. Member for Canterbury in proceeding in the way that it proposes.
 I should take this opportunity to inform the Committee that parliamentary counsel has been instructed to draft a money resolution, which the Bill will require. The resolution will be tabled so that by following the order of consideration, we can ensure that the debate on it next week does not delay the Committee's progress. I am sorry that it was not drafted beforehand, but we had thought that the possibility of conducting matters differently might mean that it was not required. It is only recently that it has become apparent that a money resolution would be necessary. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
That the Promotion of Volunteering Bill be considered in the following order: Clauses 3 to 5, Clauses 1 and 2, Clauses 6 and 7, remaining proceedings on the Bill.

Clause 3 - Amendment of the Financial Services Act 1986

Julian Brazier: I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
 I promised that I would be extremely brief on each clause, but as a point for discussion, I shall give a short explanation to the Committee of why I originally tabled them. 
 Clause 3 deals with the role of the Financial Services Authority in regulating the insurance market as it affects sporting and other recreational clubs. Someone may well ask what that means, as no one thought that the Bill would affect sporting and other recreational clubs. I agreed to include the clause simply to draw attention to the fact that, bizarrely, the FSA has announced its intention shortly to treat sporting and other governing bodies that have in-house compulsory insurance as though they were insurance advisers, with all the paperwork and bureaucracy that that entails. 
 To give rugby as an example, one of my sons attended a school that did not play rugby, so every Sunday I took him to Whitstable rugby football club—an excellent organisation that I am proud to have attended every Sunday for two years. It has a compulsory insurance policy as laid down by its national governing body, and the arrangement is excellent. It means that all the rugby clubs in the country and the governing body are properly insured. The whole thing is watertight; it is a good arrangement. 
 Under the FSA's plans, the governing body will shortly be treated as an insurance adviser, because it is giving to its members advice—in fact, more than advice; it is giving orders—about insurance. It seems absolutely bizarre that we should be imposing such bureaucracy on rugby or any other kind of sporting clubs. For the reasons that I gave earlier, I shall not insist on the clause, but I wanted to put those points on record.

Lembit Öpik: I did not participate in the debate on the order in which we will consider the clauses because that was a procedural point. However, it is a great shame that the simplicity of the Bill is being compromised by the fact that there must be expedience if the hon. Gentleman is to get any legislation passed.
 Although I certainly do not understand the clause as well as the hon. Gentleman, it seems that we have somewhat lost the plot in this country when it comes to understanding the motivations of those who run rugby clubs, to take his example, and of those who sell insurance; they are very different. I hope that the Minister can tell us what the Government intend to do about that problem and reassure us that, in some way, the intent of clause 3 will be covered by Government action. If she does not do so, it will not only send a signal that the Government have not fully grasped the difficulties that we are discussing, but imply that those organisations that depend on the Government to act on such difficult issues are not being fully represented in her words. What I am looking for from her is a clear 
 explanation of how the Government would like to handle the issue.

Tim Boswell: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. Does he agree that the danger in this kind of arrangement is that, in the absence of a statutory obligation on the sports body to take out insurance—the Minister may want to comment on that—the effect of further regulation is to make it less likely that it will do so? That will make it much more likely that difficulties will be caused for someone involved in an accident.

Lembit Öpik: That is right. Not only would the individual suffer as a result, but so too would sport and recreational activities as a whole. An alternative for the organisations on which the legislation is being imposed is to give up completely and say, ''We won't bother.'' Certainly, no one will be more inclined to offer recreational activities on account of the regulations. It stands to reason that some people making decisions at the margins will decide that the regulations are the final straw. They will either close down their activities or not commence them in the first place. I merely expect the Minister—and I am sure that she has made considerable preparations—to explain how the Government will handle that pressing issue.

Derek Wyatt: What sort of madness is there in our society when we have to say ''Be careful in case you're not insured'' before our families can do the things that we want them to do? The whole basis is crackers. We should welcome the fact that national governing bodies take out insurance; that gives us an assurance that we can go and play with our children. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), I would like to know what the Government's plan is. If we are right about the FSA's intent, what is the Government's response to it?

Andy Reed: I welcome the sentiments of the hon. Members who have just spoken; I was playing rugby at the weekend, and I have a number of injuries from that game, although I think that we were wholly and completely insured.
 It is a sad indictment that matters have got to this stage. We are talking about outside bodies, and I have worked quite hard in the past few years with community and amateur sports clubs. One of the particular fears and frustrations of Back Benchers is that we take positive steps forward, but all the time, outside this place, other organisations that we have established and let loose are, drip by drip, slowly bleeding dry sports clubs up and down the country. 
 Sometimes, the first that we hear of such cases is when people come and complain to us in our surgeries. I hope that now is the time, as part of the Bill—perhaps the Minister can reassure us on this—that we will at last be able to take back control. At the end of the day, we are the ones who get the blame. For too long we have been passing the buck to someone else to take the blame for us. Let us bring the blame culture back in here; let us take control. It is a shame that we are losing the clause, but I hope that the Minister or 
 others will find another route via which we can make amendments to the Financial Services Act 1986 and bring organisations such as the Financial Services Authority back into line.

Jacqui Lait: I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister, because she has had a barrage of complaints, to which I would like to add. I am sympathetic because she should not be answering for the FSA. Somebody who is responsible for that organisation should be present. We are all well aware of the number of sporting activities and businesses that are affected by FSA regulations, some of which are sensible, while others lead us to raise an eyebrow.
 By coincidence, I also spent part of the weekend at my local rugby club, where the new club house was being opened; the club had successfully raised enough funds and the occasion was a very happy one. However, as constituency MPs, we all know that on such occasions someone inevitably comes up, pokes us in the chest and asks, ''What about this?''. The angriest exchange that I had at the weekend was over insurance. Some 250 youngsters under the age of 17 play at Beckenham rugby club every Sunday morning. Fathers, mothers and people who have played rugby all their lives voluntarily give up Sunday mornings to teach the kids. However, the schools have backed out, possibly because of the blame culture, and it will now be left to the rugby clubs to try to recreate the triumph that we saw last year. The people with whom I discussed the issue were very angry and bitter at the thought that they would have to take out their own insurance and that the club would not be able to do so or that the bureaucracy involved would put it off. If we continue like that, we will not have an international rugby team worth the game. 
 Although the clause is seemingly innocuous, I am happy to support its not being insisted upon in order to get clause 2 through. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us, certainly by the end of the Committee stage, that whichever Department is responsible for the FSA—whether it is the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry—is going to tell us that the FSA will withdraw such a thoroughly daft proposal.

Fiona Mactaggart: What has been described is one of the problems with the Bill and one of the reasons why it has been difficult for us to resolve some of the issues that the hon. Member for Canterbury raised in introducing it. The Bill deals with issues that reach across a number of Departments and which require their collaboration, and not just their agreement, to settle. For example, I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism about what role community and amateur sports clubs can play in helping to resolve some of the insurance problems that sporting bodies face. He has been actively negotiating with community and amateur sports clubs to see whether they can take steps to resolve some of the issues. That is one example of how we are seeking to make progress.
 One of the problems is that the bogey often gets bigger than it needs to be; I am not sure that that is the case, but it is possible. The changes that are causing concern among those in rugby football and others are a consequence of the introduction of regulations resulting from the insurance mediation directive. Standards in voluntary organisations should be as high as those in professional organisations. As the Minister with responsibility for the voluntary sector, I hold that that is a fundamental principle that we must find out how best to implement in practice.

Julian Brazier: The voluntary sector shares the Minister's concerns about standards. However, we are dealing not with the matter of standards, but with legislation that is designed to prevent organisations that exist for profit from exploiting vulnerable individuals. There is no question of rugby clubs or other sporting clubs exploiting anybody through the insurance market, so it is inappropriate that they should have to carry these burdens.
 Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), I feel sorry for the Minister in having to pick up so many points from different Departments. However, members of the Committee will feel a heavy heart if I have to withdraw clause 3 because the Minister cannot offer us more than she already has.

Fiona Mactaggart: To some extent, the sense that the voluntary sector is amateur and therefore does not need professional standards has held it back and often created an inappropriate power relationship between funders of voluntary organisations and the organisations themselves. It has sometimes created a feeling—not in the sector, but for those on whom it depends for resources—that things can be half well done. That is not the case in insurance. Nevertheless, it is important to start with a belief that minimum standards should universally apply across voluntary as well as professional organisations.
 Sometimes, those minimum standards are designed to prevent profiteering and exploitation. For example, the insurance mediation directive requires that individuals or companies who carry out insurance or reinsurance mediation should be registered on the basis of the following minimum requirements: appropriate knowledge and ability; good repute; possession of professional indemnity insurance or any other comparable guarantee against liability arising out of professional negligence; and sufficient financial capacity in the case of insurance intermediaries who handle customers' money. Those requirements are designed to guarantee a high level of professionalism and competence on the part of insurance intermediaries across the European Union. That is why the directive has been developed. 
 In the directive, the intermediaries are defined as persons who take up or pursue their activities for remuneration. That is where the concern arises. We want to ensure that standards are adapted appropriately to the needs of the sector in question. That often happens in voluntary organisations, although it happens less in sporting organisations, for practical rather than bad reasons. As voluntary 
 organisations such as law centres and councils for voluntary service grow, they recognise that there is an infrastructure issue with supporting front-line volunteering. They need a more robust back-room infrastructure that can resolve some of the collective problems of the sector. Those problems are not easily fixed by the person doing the front-line service; the people who give advice in citizens advice bureaux or referee at rugby matches are not the ones to do that. There is a need for a back-office operation with the professionalism and infrastructure to provide umbrella network services.

Lembit Öpik: I am listening with interest, and two words come to mind: ''wood'' and ''trees''. While, technically, I can see where the Minister is going, it sounds as if she expects much more than we should realistically require from organisations that have not, fundamentally, been set up to sell insurance. If I am to be persuaded by the hon. Member for Canterbury to vote in favour of rejecting the clause, I must also be persuaded that, strategically, the Government understand that we do not need to copper-bottom every aspect of the matter.
 The Minister said to begin with—I paraphrase slightly—that the question is not one of risk elimination, but one of risk management. I want her to acknowledge that point in the context of this insurance business. Perhaps she could take a step back and give a little more latitude to the organisations in question, which never will intend to get rich by selling insurance.

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not want to give them latitude, but to create the right kind of support mechanisms to ensure that they can provide through umbrella organisations such as community amateur sports clubs advice of an appropriate standard, so that insurance can be provided. I do not think that the answer is to say that it is all right to provide badly run insurance schemes. I am not saying that that is what happens at the moment, but it could happen.

Andrew Bennett: My hon. Friend's defence is that Europe is now imposing a directive, but as I understand it, she said that that applies only where there is a charge. Surely a national body that gives advice about particular insurance schemes is not covered by the directive as long as it does not charge for the advice.

Fiona Mactaggart: I think that that is probably the case, but I am nevertheless arguing for standards that I think players of sport have a right to expect. I suggest that, while we might need to establish some interim support arrangements to help those who are facing this question at present, the longer-term solution is to try to bring about in the sporting sector what was developed in the advice-giving sector. The two are not hugely different in terms of the way in which many people operate within them.
 Exactly the same problems have been faced in the advice-giving sector. It is possible that the advice that is given can give rise to liability for negligence, with high costs. However, umbrella organisations have developed that have provided schemes that comply with the requirements in question in ways that are in 
 tune with the voluntary nature of the activities and that produce the results that we all want.

Tim Boswell: I strongly endorse the Minister's general comments about the need for appropriate professionalism in the voluntary sector. However, first, will she concede that one aspect of the voluntary sector is, by its nature, that it is often run on a shoestring? The operation need not be amateurish, but any accretion of costs makes a significant difference to its viability. That is the practical reality.
 Secondly, will the Minister at least commit herself to exploring with her ministerial colleagues a way of finding sensible protocols for handling this matter in future? Again, we are not wedded to the clause—if it goes, it goes—but we need an answer to the problem that it identifies.

Fiona Mactaggart: There is an answer in what I have been saying. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 sets out what the powers of the FSA cover. The key question is whether the voluntary organisations carry on the activities in question by way of business. If not, the activities are not regulated by the FSA. The problem arises at the point when there might be a margin of appreciation about whether they are doing so, and that is where I am right about raising the level of professionalism in the umbrella bodies.
 I undertake to the Committee to seek to work with those bodies. In that context, I am going to haul in the my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who is the key person here, because the issue affects sport differently from other voluntary sector organisations. We shall work with sport's umbrella bodies—he regularly does that—and the new community-owned sports clubs. They will be key to resolving ways in which the infrastructure of sport can meet desirable standards.

Lembit Öpik: I apologise if I came on a bit strong to the Minister earlier; I happened to feel strongly about the subject at that moment. I must control my blood sugar level because I have not eaten today.
 I understand what the Minister is trying to do, and it is logical enough, even if I have different views about the level of risk management. However, how many times has something gone wrong as a result of bad advice on, or mis-selling of, insurance in the circumstance that the Bill seeks to tackle? I understand that she may not have that statistic, so perhaps she could write to Committee members to give us an idea of the size of the problem. It is quite plausible that there will be cases of which I have not heard, but it is also possible that the answer will be a very small number indeed.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is right, but he must accept that it is difficult to determine an accurate figure. I shall try to find such a figure and, if I do, I shall share it with the Committee, but I am not undertaking to write to every Committee member as it is not the business of Government to give best estimates, and I have a feeling that we are in that area.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and sorry if she feels that I am hounding her—I am not—but I am interested in the tenor of her remarks as the Minister with responsibility for the voluntary and charitable sector. She talks about the need for amateur and voluntary bodies to have the highest possible standards, and nobody disagrees with that. However, the implication is that that will add significantly to their costs. Those of us who are involved in charity work know that it is hardest to raise money for back-office costs. Does she think that there are implications for the base costs of amateur and adventure bodies? If those costs are raised, the market will come into operation and we will lose even more of those bodies than we will if they do not have a proper statement of inherent risk, for instance.

Fiona Mactaggart: That is exactly the reason for the £80 million investment in infrastructure. As money for back-room activities is the hardest to raise, for too long there has been a kind of conspiracy—not a deliberate one—of operating on a shoestring. There is the risk that things will be done badly and possibly dangerously, although I do not think that there is any evidence that that is the case for insurance. That is not acceptable. It is, however, acceptable to have the highest standards of professionalism, compatible with amateur and voluntary activities, which would also develop the sector's capacity to do more and be more ambitious.

Frank Dobson: I perfectly understand the Minister's desire to ensure that the insurance arrangements that any club, collection of clubs or sporting body might have will be effective and provide the cover that people want. However, if that is the case, rather than imposing the duty on Bloggsville rugby club, or whatever, would it not be best for the Financial Services Authority simply to lay out advice to all such clubs on what would be covered by their policies? Then they would not need any damn bureaucracy. If people did not comply, perhaps they would be subject to legal action.

Fiona Mactaggart: That is a sensible suggestion. In fact, it follows the Government's approach to the Bill. Many of the issues that the Bill raises can best be dealt with by policy and advice. Clear advice, which sets out the requirements for people, will help to overcome some of the myths that have created a perception that there will be an enormous burden to meet and a level of regulation that is not actually necessary.

Andrew Bennett: Would it not be a good idea, then, to leave the clause in the Bill? My hon. Friend the Minister could talk to the FSA and tell it to come up with the guidance by next week, and then we could remove it.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am making this contribution on the basis of supporting the desire of the hon. Member for Canterbury to remove the clause. Were he not to do that, I would press my amendments forcefully, but I hope that I will not need to do so. I have given the Committee an undertaking, which I will fulfil, that I will contact the FSA and try to ensure that guidance, in a form that can be understood by the referee on the front line and that properly assists the
 umbrella bodies to provide the services that they want to provide, is issued.

Julian Brazier: There is one other thing that the Minister, who has been very helpful in dealing with our points, could promise the Committee. She could make a pledge to write to us to let us know whether there has been any instance at any time in the past few years of the problem that we are discussing arising. It would help if she could promise to let us have that information in writing.

Fiona Mactaggart: If such a case is drawn to my attention, I will certainly do that.
 I sound as though I am trying to extend debate; I am not, as hon. Members looking at my wilting spine can tell. Either the clause is not necessary because the vast majority of those giving advice are not regulated by the FSA, or it risks creating an uneven playing field between the voluntary and the professional sectors, which we have sought to overcome. Going in a different direction that ensures the highest standards for all, with appropriate back-room support and delivery mechanisms—I understand that the FSA is designed more for commercial companies than rugby football associations—means that withdrawing the clause is the sensible thing to do.

Lembit Öpik: Rather than continuously intervening on the Minister, I thought it better to express my frustrations in one go. Up to this point, she has been unable to provide any evidence of an actual problem; she has talked only of a theoretical one. It reminds me of something that a physicist once said when he was not totally convinced of something: ''That's all very well in practice, but does it work in theory?''
 We are in the same situation with this legislation. The Government are defending insurance arrangements and bureaucracy to solve a problem that I suspect barely exists in reality. They could take the same approach to other dangers, such as insufficient wood protection and termite control on the floor of a rugby bar, which could cause people to fall through the floor when stamping their feet and singing rugby songs. There is probably legislation somewhere to prevent that—perhaps in the building industry. I am sure that there is a health and safety regulation on noise to ensure that there is an upper limit to the level at which people can sing to avoid damaging people's hearing. There could also be regulations on potentially offensive words in such songs. 
 We can take the point further ad absurdum, but surely the Government's responsibility is to draw a line somewhere. The politics of common sense should intervene. Sadly, as my father said to me all too often when I was young, ''Sense is not common.'' I proved that by not really understanding what he meant for three years. If the Minister wants to convince the Committee that the Government are really cognisant of the problem that we are highlighting and, as she said at the beginning of this discussion, accept that we are not trying to eliminate risk, but to manage it in a 
 responsible way, we deserve a better response than we have had so far.

Julian Brazier: The Minister will not take this amiss as we have had good-natured conversations all the way through, but I find her reply wholly unconvincing. Nevertheless, I will urge the Committee to remove the clause for two extremely simple reasons. First, the weight of my postbag and all the discussions and consultations suggest that the problem is not nearly as serious as the gaping hole that is dealt with in clauses 1 and 2. Secondly, there is any number of opportunities to table amendments and tackle this, including a Finance Bill every year. Indeed there is one going through the House now. I urge hon. Members, many of whom, I suspect, share my lack of conviction on the replies on this, none the less to support the removal of the clause.
 Question put and negatived.
Clause 3 disagreed to.Clause 4Amendment of the Data Protection Act 1998

Clause 4 - Amendment of the Data Protection Act 1998

Mr. Brazier: I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, after 'organisation,' insert 'or'.
No. 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out 'or statutory body'.
No. 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 40, leave out
'any voluntary organisation or volunteering body'
and insert
'the organisation or body in question'.
No. 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 43, leave out 'or volunteer'.
No. 16, in clause 4, page 4, line 1, leave out 'or he'.
No. 17, in clause 4, page 4, line 2, leave out 'volunteer'.
No. 18, in clause 4, page 4, line 5, after 'section,' insert ' ''volunteer'','.
Mr. Brazier: Once again, I shall be brief. We are considering two main problems in the Data Protection Act 1998. I said that there is a problem with the European convention on human rights, which is why I was happy to drop some provisions. One of the two main points that came out of the drafting discussions on the Bill was accessing data on how to contact voluntary organisations. Let me give an example that originated from the Central Council of Physical Recreation.
Unfortunately, Sport England, in an error which I am sure was wholly unintentional, put an old form on its website. It was supposed to explain to certain categories of clubs how to apply for charitable status. It was a perfectly honest administrative error of the sort that can happen in any organisation. As a result, a large number of clubs used the wrong form, misapplied to the Inland Revenue and were rejected. 
When the CCPR asked the Inland Revenue for a list of the clubs and organisations that had submitted the wrong forms so that it could send them up-to-date forms, they were told, ''Oh no, we cannot do that because the Data Protection Act does not allow us to release the information.''
One of the amendments addresses the point that it should be much easier to release contact details for organisations. We would not give away any sensitive information about individuals, but merely explain how to get in touch with organisations. Another is small and self-explanatory. It is intended to give a bit of comfort by ensuring that it would not be an offence for someone in a voluntary organisation to give out data in good faith if there is no possibility of commercial gain. That is the sort of common-sense measure that I thought might commend itself to Parliament and the Committee.
Andrew Bennett: I had a lot of sympathy with clause 3; I have less with this clause because it seems that the Data Protection Agency has operated with a great deal of good sense. It is other bodies that have used it as a bogey to try to deny access. Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence that the Data Protection Agency has acted unreasonably?
Mr. Brazier: I have not attacked the Data Protection Agency, and I did not intend to do so. My practical example concerned the Inland Revenue, which I can honestly say is about the most efficient of all Government organisations in terms of the way it handles my constituency postbag. It deals with constituency casework faster than anyone I can think of. The fact that it has interpreted the Data Protection Act in the way I mentioned suggests to me that the problem extends into Government.
Mr. Boswell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not have followed—as some of us have in detail—the proceedings of the Gender Recognition Bill. I do not seek to reopen the Committee proceedings on that Bill here, but the same issues arose of the exchange of information and whether it might or might not be relevant. Does my hon. Friend concede that even if it is impossible to enact the clause for tactical and legal reasons, it is nevertheless important that people should be able to release information and are able to do so provided they have consent of the parties concerned?
Mr. Brazier: Yes, I agree. I do not want to prolong the debate because I shall support removal of the clause, which was included as a talking point. The matter goes beyond consent of the individual. For example, someone may have knowledge about the medical condition of a child and when that child has left their custody, they may have good reason to pass on information obtained as a result of looking after that child. They might want to contact a neighbour, or whoever that child is staying with, to pass on details because they seemed important. My understanding is that the Data Protection Act and the rulings of the commissioner are quite helpful in such circumstances.
The fact is, however, that there is a perception problem, and my example of the Inland Revenue shows that the problem extends not just to voluntary 
organisations but to Government and large organisations. The police interpretation in the Soham case is the most famous example, but there have been examples in the press relating to social services. My aim in including the clause—it is the one element of the Bill that, to be realistic, I never hoped to get enacted—is to press for more public statements from the Government and the information commissioner to ease the real concerns of voluntary organisations, which they pass on to me from time to time.
Mr. Wyatt: Forms often ask us to tick if we wish to receive further information or tick if we mind disclosing something. Would not one solution to the hon. Gentleman's problem be to add a tiny box at the end of a form so that one would not have to apply to any data protection agency? Clubs could just tick the box to allow something to be put in the public domain.
Mr. Brazier: That is an excellent suggestion. My point in initiating the debate was to say that we need to find ways to ease the perceived and, where some Government agencies are concerned, the actual burden that the Data Protection Act causes.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that the clause was a probing one. For the benefit of the Committee, I ought to spend some time dealing with his fundamental point. He recognises that the clause is designed to deal with something that is much greater in perception than reality. My concern is that that is a description of the whole Bill and that legislation is not a very good way of dealing with problems of perception. It plays a role, and that is one reason why I took the opportunity of the sittings motion, despite your strictures, Mr. Amess, to examine and, in many ways, to welcome the way in which the issue had been put on the agenda. People have been given high hopes that a surprisingly wide range of problems will be resolved by this Committee coming up with a piece of legislation. That is part of the problem that we must address.
I have tabled a series of amendments, and I am in your hands, Mr. Amess, about whether we are currently discussing amendments that were moved by the hon. Gentleman or the clause stand part. I will take the visual guidance that your hands are giving me and take the opportunity to discuss the whole matter. I am not trying to prolong today's proceedings.
Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister be kind enough to reflect on whether, by the 1998 Act, the Government intended to encompass voluntary organisations? Under the original directive, which turned into UK legislation, there was dispensation or exemption when the processing of the legislation was unlikely adversely to affect individuals' rights and freedoms. As a Minister in the Conservative Administration of long ago, I recall that we had intended to exercise to the full such powers of exemption or simplification under the directive. I am sure that if we were in power this would be one areas that we would have tried to exempt.
Fiona Mactaggart: I have to be honest and say that I do not completely understand the purport of what the hon. Gentleman said. I did not have to be honest then and I could have burbled.
Mr. Taylor: I had not deliberately sought to be obtuse, but it is a long time since I was a Minister so I am not as sharp as the hon. Lady.
In brief, the point that I was trying to make was that the 1998 Act did not take the powers of exemption that the directive had enabled the Government to take. On reflection, would the Government prefer to have exempted voluntary organisations? This probing clause would then give them an opportunity to say that they are taking the matter for further examination to see whether application of the 1998 Act has been too extensive.
Fiona Mactaggart: Actually, I do not think that. The point goes back to the issue about professional and voluntary that I was dealing with before.
We are in an era in which we increasingly ask voluntary organisations of many different kinds to contribute to public services and in which many of our services for older people are offered by voluntary organisations; they are often offered by volunteers and sometimes by employed people in voluntary organisations. It is right that the people who benefit from those services should enjoy the same standards of protection for their personal data as people who receive those services from a statutory body. After all, that is what the Act is designed to cover.
We all agree that there are hard corners to the consequences, although I do not think that matters have been necessarily affected in quite the way that the hon. Member for Canterbury thinks. As he pointed out, much of this is an issue of perception, rather than actuality. We also know that the perceived problem is not confined to the voluntary sector. As he pointed out, there have also been issues of misperception in the police about their duties under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is important that we are clear about the fact that the Act regulates the processing of information relating to individuals, including obtaining, holding, use or disclosure of such information. In implementing the directive referred to by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), the Government sought to provide the right balance between the individual's entitlement to privacy in the handling of his personal details and the information user's needs to process information to provide the required services.
There is a degree of misunderstanding about the eight data protection principles that provide the backbone of the Act's regime. They are expressed in general terms. We need an increased understanding of those terms; it is clear from today's debate that they are not fully understood. They require that personal data be fairly and lawfully processed; that it be processed for limited purposes; that it should be adequate and relevant; that should not be excessive; that it should be accurate and kept no longer than necessary; that it should be processed in line with the individual's rights; and that it be kept secure and not transferred to countries without adequate protection.
All disclosures of personal data must be made either in accordance with the data protection principles that I have outlined, or consistently with one of the Act's non-disclosure exemptions. The latter have the effect 
of lifting some of the Act's restrictions on disclosure in limited circumstances, when matters recognised as being in the public interest—for instance, the prevention or detection of crime—are otherwise be likely to be jeopardised. It would not be in tune with that approach to have a broad door, called voluntary organisations.
We know to our cost—it is one of the reasons why I shall shortly bring forward a new charities Bill—that some would exploit the status of voluntary and charitable organisations for personal gain through processes contrary to the intentions of that status. They are rare, but they nevertheless exist, and we have a duty to protect people against them.
The clause appears to exempt from all relevant requirements of the Act any disclosure of contact details or officers' names relating to any voluntary organisation or volunteering body, provided only that the disclosure was made in good faith and not for commercial gain. The term ''contact details'' is not defined, the dispensation would be available to any voluntary organisation, volunteering body or statutory body, and the information could be disclosed to any body for any purpose. That is a very broad door. Such wide exemption would be inconsistent with the Act's regime, and it would appear to be inconsistent with the derogations from the data protection principles, which the directive permits.
New exemptions to the Data Protection Act would need to be carefully considered, and the Government would wish to consult the Information Commissioner about them. We are clear that it would not be appropriate to exempt disclosures of personal data in the voluntary sector from any part of the Act's regime simply because the sector would find it easier to operate outside the relevant restrictions. Individuals whose personal details are held by voluntary organisations are just as entitled to have their details properly protected as any other individual, and personal details in such cases are things that they would not wish to be in the public domain, such as their participation in voluntary organisations, or management bodies that might be the targets of attack from people who disagree with their aims. Having their names and addresses in the public domain would not be welcome. It is important that we do not slip into making such a broad exemption.
As for proposed new section 30A(2) to the 1998 Act, it is an offence under section 55(1) of that Act to disclose personal data knowingly or recklessly and without the consent of the data controller. Thus, a volunteering body or a voluntary organisation could not commit and offence under the Data Protection Act—
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
On resuming—
Fiona Mactaggart: I was coming to the end of my response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury about the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998. Before I conclude, however, I 
may mention that I successfully used the opportunity of the Division in the House to collar the Minister for Sport and got him to agree that he, our officials and I will meet to discuss how we can assist the volunteering sector with the insurance problems that we have debated. I am trying to assist the hon. Gentleman in finding resolutions to the issues, and that is one example of the ways in which I am seeking to do so.
Mr. Brazier: I welcome that announcement. It is good news. I hope that the summit—
Mrs. Lait: Summit?
Mr. Brazier: Two Ministers meeting is a summit. I hope that it produces a good outcome for the sporting world. The test of the pudding will be when the rules are implemented later in the year.
I also welcome the Minister's general remarks. At the end of the day, we will see whether data protection improves as a result of the guidelines and cases as they emerge.
The Minister alluded to the Charities Bill and the fact that she will be bringing it forward. That is good news for the whole Committee, because it will give us an opportunity to return to any issue that is not resolved during the course of this Bill.
Mrs. Lait: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to say when the Charities Bill will be published, as we may finish this Committee before then?
Mr. Brazier: Indeed. I do not know whether the Minister is tempted to respond with a publication date. That Bill was, after all, in the Queen's Speech.
Fiona Mactaggart: I can assure the Committee that it will be published this month.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful. That Bill will offer us a second opportunity to visit any issues not cleared up during this one.
Question put and negatived. 
 Clause 4 disagreed to.

Clause 5 - Persons assisting those injured or suffering

Julian Brazier: I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 19, in clause 5, page 4, line 8, after 'person' insert 
'to whom this section applies'.
 No. 20, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, after 'liable' insert 
'in any civil proceedings'.
 No. 21, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, after 'law' insert 'or otherwise'. 
 No. 22, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out 
'unless he intended to cause harm' 
 and insert— 
 '(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person providing assistance— 
 (a) intended to cause harm to the other person, or 
 (b) was reckless as to whether his action might cause him harm. 
 (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) a person is reckless as to the consequences of his action if, and only if, he foresees the risk of the consequences and unreasonably proceeds with the action.'.
 No. 23, in clause 5, page 4, line 15, at end insert— 
'( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person acting in his capacity as a person provided by an employer to render first-aid to employees.'.
 No. 24, in clause 5, page 4, line 15, at end insert— 
'( ) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 or any regulations under that Act.'.
 No. 25, in clause 5, page 4, line 15, at end insert— 
'( ) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the descriptions of person to whom this section applies. 
 ( ) Any such regulations— 
 (a) may make different provision for different cases and circumstances, and 
 (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 ( ) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative and other organisations as appears to him appropriate.'.

Julian Brazier: I shall be even briefer on this clause than on previous clauses, because I know that the Committee wants to get on to debate clause 1.
 In America, with which I shall draw parallels when we debate clause 2 next Wednesday, the good Samaritan provisions relating to people who assist at, for example, road traffic accidents and who have, from time to time, been sued, have been pursued on much the same agenda as that for people who have tried to sort out the problem of the litigation culture in sport. It seemed logical to introduce this clause in a Bill, even if it primarily dealt with another issue. I was particularly encouraged to do so by many people in the voluntary sector and received a charming letter from, among others, St. John Ambulance, supporting me. None the less, the practical fact is that, while this side of the Atlantic has a whole mass of case law, which we shall come to next Wednesday, relating to the main substance of the Bill, it has not yet had any bad cases drawn to my attention that clause 5 would cover. So, without too much delay, I urge the Committee to disagree to it.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking the principle of considering the evidence and risk-management principle that we discussed earlier. I hope that the Minister will accept that principle in agreeing to the removal of the clause, which I assume she will agree to. If she does, I want to check that she has taken that on board for other aspects of the Bill as well.

Fiona Mactaggart: I have always taken the approach when dealing with issues such as those in the Bill that we need evidence not only of the need to deal with the matters, but that the proposed solutions will work. I shall take that approach with every clause, which is why I am grateful that the hon. Member for Canterbury recognises that we should not let the existence of good Samaritan-type legislation in a
 litigious culture such as that of the USA lead us to introduce a far-reaching and, in some ways, flawed provision without clear and convincing evidence that there is a problem and that the legislation is the best way to tackle it.
 I share the hon. Gentleman's belief that those conditions have not been met in this case. To introduce such a measure would be excessive. It could have extremely damaging effects on the treatment of injured people by good Samaritans if it protects the latter from any responsibility for their actions. We will come later in the debate to responsibility, which is at the heart of the Bill. 
 In the discussions that we have to try to find consensus, I have been grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the issue of responsibility. The Government's ambition is to ensure that the legislation recognises that people must act responsibly. If we were to accept this widely drawn clause, which would apply whenever one person endeavours to provide assistance to another, we could fail to distinguish between people who assist responsibly and those who act irresponsibly. We do not wish to discourage people from giving assistance to those whom they believe are injured or in distress, but it is important that they act sensibly and are not irresponsible, however well meaning they are. Someone can be irresponsible and well intentioned at the same time. That is at the heart of the Bill. We are trying to ensure that well-intentioned people are not given license to be irresponsible. If the clause were to survive, there would be a risk that such people would be permitted to commit ill-advised actions that could make matters worse.

Lembit Öpik: I am willing to go along with disagreeing to the clause, but I have a slight issue to raise with the Minister. She is pushing this matter too far. Presenting the measure as a Trojan horse for irresponsible behaviour shows a rather negative view of the human condition. I wish to concentrate on this statement in the clause:
''any action performed by him in good faith''.
 That really should be insurance enough. In the event of a court case, those who acted in bad faith would suffer the appropriate sanctions.

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not agree. The issue is not just about a person's good faith, as it is right that we prevent people from acting recklessly in good faith. There is a risk—we should deal with it on this clause, although we will return to it later—that we will be tempted into passing legislation that, first, does not recognise the present protection and, secondly, provides a wide permission to act recklessly, even if in good faith. I must put this on the record before I draw my remarks to a close; I am not trying to spin out the debate. At present, common law gives the court the responsibility to reach a fair and just decision having considered all the relevant circumstances of the case. The clause would not enable the court to take into account the circumstances of the case. It would mean that, as long as someone's intentions were good,
 however reckless they were, their behaviour would be permissible. That looks quite good on the surface, but it is fundamentally dangerous.

Frank Dobson: Until very recently, everyone assumed that common law said that if someone acted in good faith and reasonably, they would be safe. It is only in very recent times that a number of court cases have suggested that that is no longer the case. The worry is that if someone has had a road accident or a sports-related accident and they are lying on the ground injured, people will do nothing for fear of being prosecuted. The situation is hazy and uncertain. Once we are relying on common law, we are back to a few precedents—the recent precedents are bad—and the opinion of a judge.

Fiona Mactaggart: We are getting into matters that we will consider when we deal with clause 2. Good faith is not the sole criterion, as it would be under the clause before us. As legislators, we have a responsibility not to increase a misperception about the way things are. The hon. Member for Canterbury quite rightly said that the evidence that he had trawled through suggested that the fear that led him to include the clause was unfounded in practice and that the clause was therefore unnecessary. It is down to us not to encourage people to believe that they are at risk of being sued if they are normally sensible and act in good faith, because as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that is not what is happening. We have a responsibility for people's perceptions. We should not feed the misconception about this issue, and we should be assiduous in ensuring that people know that the risk is not as great as many of them fear.

Frank Dobson: Nevertheless, the perception exists and those involved in sporting spheres recognise that there is a danger that people who have had an accident will just be left alone. If we do not legislate, it will look as though nothing is happening and nothing has changed, and the idea that someone might end up in court for trying to help will not be dashed by anything that is said in this Committee. What are the Government going to do to change the public perception?
 The situation has changed. The advice that the Minister has received seems to be based on the assumption that things are as they have always been, but they are not—they have shifted in one direction. The intention of every proposal in this short Bill has been to reverse that extension. The perception to which I have referred remains, and if we do not do anything about the law or the perception of it, people will not get the helpful treatment that they would have otherwise have received.

Fiona Mactaggart: That is exactly why I have worked as hard as I have to find a way of dealing with that point and why I have offered to set up, within the framework of the Russell commission on the future of volunteering, a study about the barriers to volunteering that we are discussing, such as risk. It is also why I have had a number of meetings with the Department for Constitutional Affairs about how litigation is dealt with. I recognise that the perception exists, but we have a duty to think carefully about the problem. If it is a problem of perception rather than
 reality, what is the best mechanism to deal with that perception? If there is a real problem, we will require effective legislation to deal with it, but we can manage a perceived concern without legislation; indeed, legislation would be a bad solution in such circumstances because it would be unnecessary, and legislation that is not needed should not be introduced.

Julian Brazier: I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). However, the key distinction between this clause and clause 2 is that, whereas the latter trawled up a huge number of unsatisfactory court cases and out-of-court settlements, which we shall come to later, none of the people to whom I have spoken about issues arising from this clause has given an example of the law going wrong. The clause was drafted with the assistance of Roy Amlot QC, who made it clear that he drafted it as he did because, given the experience in America, he was concerned about the way in which future judgments might turn rather than because of any actual judgment.
 Question put and negatived. 
 Clause 5 disagreed to.

Clause 1 - Interpretation

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out 
'a voluntary organisation or volunteering body' 
 and insert 'that organisation or body'.—[Fiona Mactaggart.]

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. It might help the Committee if I tell the Minister that I am delighted to take on board the next two small drafting amendments. If she feels able to speak briefly on them, we can move on to the main group of amendments.

David Amess: That is a very helpful point of order.

Fiona Mactaggart: I shall follow the hon. Gentleman's example of brevity. The amendments on this clause are significant because they are important for the whole of the volunteering sector.
 I need to make clear to the Committee what a volunteer is. Until I became Minister with a responsibility for volunteers, I did not realise what a contested term it was.

Frank Dobson: It used to be a well-known name for public houses.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend. I cannot help feeling that that was a reference to the role of volunteers in the armed forces rather than to the type of volunteer that we are discussing.
 As the Bill is drafted, the term could not apply to any person employed by a volunteering organisation or volunteering body who engaged in voluntary work in that organisation or body. It is entirely possible that an employee of such an organisation or body might give voluntary time to the organisation outside his or her contracted hours, and that possibility must be recognised in the interpretational terms. Our amendment is intended to clarify the description of a volunteer by tidying up the drafting of the definition. 
 Are we also considering at this point the amendments to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c)?

Julian Brazier: It is just amendment No. 26.

David Amess: Order. I think that I am in the Chair. We are taking amendment No. 26.

Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I just wanted to make clear what we were discussing, and I have made all the points that I wish to make.

Julian Brazier: I am happy to accept the amendment, and I apologise for intervening.
 Amendment agreed to.

Fiona Mactaggart: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
' ''institution'' means a body corporate or unincorporated association that is formally constituted;'.
 The amendment deals with the definition of a volunteering organisation and, in this case, an institution. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the matter on board and agreeing with the view that we have taken. We are again trying to make it clear that an institution covers all those organisations in the sector that are commonly understood to be volunteering organisations in the usual meaning of the term.

Julian Brazier: I am happy to accept the amendment.
 Amendment agreed to.

Fiona Mactaggart: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out
', other than an employee,'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 29, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert 
'(other than a person acting in his capacity as an employee of that organisation or body)'.
 No. 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out paragraph (b). 
 No. 31, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).

Fiona Mactaggart: The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the term ''volunteer''. Under paragraph (b) of the part of the clause defining the term, it could be extended to a farmer or other landowner who permits his land to be used for voluntary or educational activity. As I have already stated, that provision has led me to receive a letter from an eager horsewoman who thinks that it will make more land available to ride on. I am concerned that that is an example of the ways in which the Bill has raised expectations that are unfounded, and I say to the hon. Member for Canterbury, who is frowning, that they will not be fulfilled.
 As it is currently drafted, the Bill would allow a person to permit their land to be used for an activity even if they knew that it was inappropriate for some reason—it could be dangerous or unsuitable, for example—but to seek exemption from liability in the event of an accident that was directly caused by their 
 negligence. The Bill could also encourage recklessness on the part of landowners in allowing the use of their land. Far from encouraging adventurous activity, it would open the gates to dangerous activity. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Gentleman, but this is the territory on which we should debate the Bill. 
 Farmers and landowners must remain responsible for the condition of their land and ensure, insofar as they are able, that it is safe. If such persons are to allow their land to be used by others, they should ensure that it is in a condition that is appropriate for that use. It would not be right to allow farmers and landowners to abdicate their responsibilities and effectively neglect others. 
 Paragraph (c), as drafted, would afford instructors from the armed forces and the police, whether during paid employment or not, the status of volunteer. There are two issues at stake here.

Julian Brazier: The paragraph refers to the cadet movement and to people in their capacity as instructors to cadets. I am sure that the Minister would want to clarify that.

Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed, but the point is whether or not those instructors are paid. That is an issue of importance to the volunteering sector, which is slightly different from the voluntary sector. There is much shared activity and concern, but some worries are specific to the volunteering sector and are not necessarily relevant to the voluntary sector, much of which is run mainly by professional staff. Let us suppose that an instructor is undertaking the supervision of an activity as part of his paid employment. As he is an employee, even if that supervision were of the training of cadets and so on, his responsibility in that capacity would be likely to be covered by the provisions of health and safety at work legislation.
 If legislation arises from the Bill, it is important that it should not cut across health and safety at work legislation. Employers have a duty of care towards their employees and that must remain intact. I am certain that it is not the hon. Gentleman's intention to remove that duty in respect of employees who are undertaking a particular part of their job. However, that would be the effect of the provision. Furthermore, I do not believe that he intends to lessen the impact of the Bill for cadet leaders or trainees in such services. They all require discipline, and introducing the proposed statement of inherent risk in such circumstances could open the gates to recklessness. I do not believe that he would want that either. 
 If an instructor from one of the services were acting in a voluntary capacity and other than in his paid employment, he would in any event be covered by the term ''volunteer'' as it is clarified under my previous amendment, provided that the organisation in which he is working is covered by the definition under the Bill. In those circumstances, there would be no need to identify him specifically. 
 The amendments are intended to ensue that the Bill is more clear about what a volunteer is and to tidy up the drafting of the definition, which has an impact beyond that of the Bill in terms of the way in which the sector uses the term ''volunteer''.

Julian Brazier: I am happy to accept amendments Nos. 28 and 29, but I urge the Committee to resist amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which deal with cadets, farmers and landowners.
 On cadets, some members of the Committee may have received letters from the cadets movement. I know that the Air Cadets have written to many hon. Members, and I have received verbal views from the Army Cadets. It may be helpful, however, if I focus my remarks on the Sea Cadets, because I have a particularly apt example to cite. 
 I wish to clarify a matter for the benefit of the Committee. I am sure that the Minister did not mean to mislead us, but part of her presentation could have been misconstrued. Cadet movement instructors are not serving members of the regular armed forces. Most of their activity is unpaid, but from time to time in more extended periods, they receive pay for going away for an extended camp, for example. It has been made clear to me by people at all levels that they are anxious to be included in the matters under discussion. I am not talking about instructors; in some cases, people at the top of the cadet movement are serving officers and are not allowed to speak publicly. All the soundings that I have taken show that they want to be included in such matters. 
 If we leave the Bill without specifically declaring such people to be volunteers, the technical effect will be that they are sometimes covered by its provisions, and sometimes not. That would not be helpful to them, and I am anxious for them to be included in the provisions. 
 For what it is worth, I hope that members of the Committee will forgive me if I describe a personal experience. For a brief time at school, I was a cadet, but my much more vivid memory is as a Territorial Army officer in Cowley, where we were close to some tough estates—the Blackbird estate came to national prominence as the origin of joyriding—and then in the east end of London. In both cases, we shared barracks with cadet units, who took kids from the most deprived areas and made men of them. I saw kids coming in aged 13 who were potential little tearaways, and saw them leave four or five years later with discipline, leadership and all the things that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would want to encourage.

Derek Wyatt: How do you know?

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman speaks in jest, of course.
 The cadet movement is also a vital pillar for recruiting for our regular and reserve armed forces. One statistic says it all: 45 per cent. of today's front-line fast jet pilots started as air cadets—a remarkable figure. 
 Much of the training of sea cadets is about sailing, which is clearly extremely important. The sea cadets in 
 my area in Whitstable are part of the oldest unit in the country, which is having its 150th anniversary in a month's time, but they are so hemmed in by legal advice, rules and so on that they have abandoned sailing on the sea. Their centre is situated next to a yacht club, of which I am a member, and only a few hundred yards from a sea scout organisation which is also hemmed in and anxious for this Bill to be passed, but which is still able to sail on the sea. However, all the naval cadet sailing is done on lakes, which involves travelling four or five miles. 
 Let me give an example from the civilian yachting world, which illustrates that this Bill is not about perceptions, but about huge legal problems. I shall read from information about a case that was sent to me by a barrister from the insurance world: 
''A lightweight 25 ft racing yacht manoeuvring to leave a marina berth in Plymouth. Skipper realised that the yacht had been caught by a gust of wind and might hit an adjacent moored yacht. Asked an (experienced) crew member to run forward with a fender. Crew member stumbled going forward. Three months later had bad leg and sued for damages. After a 5-day trial, the Court found the skipper liable on the grounds that a reasonably careful skipper should have pre-briefed the crew on this manoeuvre, and had a crew member pre-placed on the bow with a fender.''
 I am trying to keep a straight face because I come from a sailing family. That was the case of Richards v. Wanstall at the Queen's bench, High Court in 1995, and it was heard by Mr. Justice Longmore, on whom I am restricted from making any comment by the Standing Orders of the House. 
 If I were running a naval cadet organisation, a sea scout organisation, a yacht club or anything else, that ruling by a judge in this country would terrify me. There is probably no sailing manoeuvre easier than putting a fender out. I cannot believe that a judge in this country thinks that a five-day trial should take place over that incident, and that damages should be awarded.

Andy Reed: I want to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the amendment, although I agree entirely with what he says about the law in this respect and how stupid it appears to those of us who seek common sense. I am concerned about the wording of the amendment and whether or not the person referred to should be paid. Believe it or not, we have sea cadets in Loughborough; we have an excellent sea cadet organisation, and we could not be further away from the coast. The river and a few canoes are about as far as many of those cadets get on a weekly basis—but they do travel.
 In the light of my other experience, there is also the matter of whether we have part-time or paid coaches. If we are considering some people—for example, Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force cadets—is it right to highlight them, or should we also be extending the specifics of this measure to others who are part-time paid coaches? Perhaps the Minister is right and there is a distinction between someone who is a volunteer and someone who is paid. Could the hon. Gentleman clarify his reaction to that problem?

Julian Brazier: My aim is to protect. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The problem that he describes would arise with the organisation rather
 than with the individual in a civil case. The question for the Committee is whether it wants to recognise such organisations as principally being equivalent to voluntary bodies. The fact that some of the cadets' instructors are sometimes paid for more extended activities leaves a grey area that I do not want to leave to the judges. I would like such organisations to be treated as voluntary organisations. I am talking about defending the organisations, rather than the individuals.
 I do not want to repeat the same points on Air Cadets and Army Cadets, because I want to make progress.

Lembit Öpik: I sympathise with the views that have been expressed, and I ask my question neutrally. Would this matter be best resolved in the hon. Gentleman's Bill, or is it a more endemic problem with the litigious society in which we live? If that is so, would it be better resolved at a macro level across more areas than just volunteering?

Julian Brazier: I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Amess, as some of us did a couple of hours ago. Broadly speaking, I think that there is a wider issue, but it has huge ramifications. I thought that I was being a bit bold, in the ''Yes, Minister'' sense of the word, in taking on this issue at all, but to broaden it to cover the whole litigation culture would have been very bold, to use Sir Humphrey's words.

Frank Dobson: Courageous, even.

Julian Brazier: Verging on that, yes.
 I should like to say something to the Minister about farmers and landowners, because this is the first time that we have disagreed on a point of fact that is related to intentions. I am concerned about people riding horses, bicycles and motorcycles on private land, and about landowners still being willing to let them do so. I am even more concerned about landowners being willing to allow farm visits. My local branch of the National Farmers Union has lobbied me on that. It is concerned that fewer and fewer farmers are willing to allow school visits. 
 There is a wider issue. If people want a scouting movement, Girl Guides and school trips, such things should be considered. The Field Studies Council is very enthusiastic; its representatives were here this morning for another meeting to support this measure. People must have somewhere to go. In some cases, the best and most accessible sites are on private land. By bringing in farmers and landowners, we could deal with that issue. It is clear when we consider the Bill even after accepting many of the Government's amendments that the farmer would have to say something. 
 Let me give a clear, specific example. There is an extremely kind farmer who lives next to me who allows my two 14-year-old sons—well, three sons, because the third one now likes to do it too, with my supervision—to shoot rabbits and pigeons with air rifles on his land. One small part of his land is potentially a little dangerous for children, because it is an old dump from the 1950s, which has some broken motor cars and glass in it. He has a wooded area as well as other land. 
 Suppose that he were considering allowing boy scouts to camp there. With a statement of inherent risk—he does not need one from me, because after all the times that I have gone on record about the subject, I could hardly bring a case—he could say to the boy scouts, ''There is a danger from this one small area; the understanding is that no one will go into that area during the camping weekend.'' I would like farmers and landowners to be included in the provisions for that very reason. 
 This has been a friendly Committee and we have all tried to get on, so I shall not labour my point, but I urge the Committee to resist the last two amendments in the group.

Lembit Öpik: I am pretty interested in the protection of farmers and their interests, because I hear at first hand that farmers in Montgomeryshire are concerned about the liability that they incur for doing what they believe is in the public interest, often without any remuneration. They therefore need a strong explanation from the Minister of the protection that they have, not least because members of the public have sought to litigate against farmers who have acted in good faith in allowing them on to their land. She explained her concerns, but I would be grateful if she could briefly provide a pointer towards where a farmer could go in her imagined legislative regime to protect him or herself from what might result from acting in good faith for the organisations that the hon. Member for Canterbury described.

Jacqui Lait: I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation of why she opposed the paragraphs to which the amendments apply. I was struck by her clear reason for excluding the cadets on the grounds of the Health and Safety Executive's duty of overriding care to the employee, which I absolutely accept. I was also struck by the importance that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury placed on the position of these organisations. It is not beyond the wit of the Committee to agree with both sides of the argument, because if there is an overriding duty of care to the employee, all that is needed is the addition in the relevant paragraph of the acceptance of that duty. I am not in the business of drafting legislation—there are greater experts on that subject than me—but in the spirit of compromise, and given that we believe that there is a need to ensure that the—

Julian Brazier: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive my interruption, but we must be clear: the powers of the HSE are completely unaffected by the Bill. They deal only with criminal law, while we are dealing with a civil matter.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful for that additional advice. My hon. Friend is a much greater expert than I am, but I am trying to be helpful and to show that we recognise that there is a duty to the employee under HSE legislation. If we could recognise that point in some way, that might be a way of gaining agreement on including—rightly, in my view—his intention to recognise the slightly anonymous role of the cadets. That is very easy for us all to do, because I am sure that we all have cadets in our constituencies. My
 constituency is in leafy suburbia, but it is suburbia none the less. It has sea scouts, air cadets and army cadets, and police cadets are being re-established. Those groups are always looking for somewhere to go for adventure training. It is just as important for my cadets to have access to adventure training as it is variously defined in the Bill as it is for those in the constituency of my hon. Friend in rural Kent, where access to the sea in particular is much easier.
 It is very important for us all to ensure the continuation of the cadets. I would hate us inadvertently to be unable to allow the cadets to thrive for the very reason given by my hon. Friend—the tremendous help that they can give to so many youngsters who come from difficult backgrounds. Leafy Beckenham has plenty of children who come from difficult backgrounds.

Julian Brazier: An amendment was tabled for exactly that reason, but I struggle to find the number—my hon. Friend will have to bear with me. Clause 2(3)(b) already states:
''not purport to exempt or exclude the volunteer, employee, voluntary body or voluntary organisation or any of its servants or agents from any criminal liability''.
 The amendment in question is therefore redundant, as that would be the effect of the Bill without it. I am, however, happy that the amendment was tabled.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for helping the Minister to solve these problems, which is what we are in the business of trying to do. I do not have a difficulty in principle with what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve.
 Another query concerns farmers. I am conscious that, under the changes in the common agricultural policy, more and more farmers are establishing nature reserves on their own private land. Such reserves are not tourist attractions and are not managed as such, but they are managed under the countryside stewardship scheme and, by their nature, many of them are re-establishing marshlands, lakes and ponds to attract wildlife. My hon. Friend referred to a similar matter. We must ensure that a farmer would not be affected by groups such as sea scouts or, as the Minister mentioned, the lady who went riding through a nature reserve that is open to the public. There are some lawyers in the Committee who can clarify the matter.

Andy Reed: One thing that I am not is a lawyer. I am on record in the House as being as fervent about lawyers as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.

Frank Dobson: I represent thousands of them.

Andy Reed: I am sure that there are plenty left. I shall not repeat what I said earlier.
 Like many hon. Members here, I am sympathetic to what is being attempted. Having heard the Minister and the hon. Member for Beckenham, I would like clarification on how much effort a farmer or landowner should make to ensure safety in the light of the blame culture. The example of the neighbour of the hon. Member for Canterbury comes to mind; if something happened with a rusty old car or whatever, 
 who would be responsible? Even with a statement of inherent risk, how much effort should the farmer make to reduce that risk? If, despite that, there were still a problem, how much responsibility should the farmer take? Should that be highlighted in the Bill as a separate entity compared with other activities that are provided for elsewhere? I should be interested to hear the hon. Lady's interpretation. I am thinking of people who are not landowners or farmers, but may own educational establishments or buildings.

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury might say, ''How long is a piece of string?'' We are trying to deal with a particular situation. I was extrapolating from nature reserves and the hon. Gentleman is extrapolating from other
 areas. We might prefer not go down that route in this Committee, but it brings up a point made by the Minister. My first reaction was that the Countryside Act 1981 defines who has access. On who has responsibility, we would all like to think that people were sufficiently responsible, but I see difficulties. Rather than continue down this route, which would expand the Bill, the best thing might be for me to allow my hon. Friend to clarify the answers to those questions.
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Brazier.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Five o'clock till Wednesday 12 May at half-past Nine o'clock.